FFRF is pissing off Ham and the Christians..... again.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You asked what I was talking about.  Those are penguins.

Spell it out for you?  Sure

P-E-N-G-U-I-N-S

---

People were promoting it.  They are part of the state, so they're allowed to do that.  The government can't force someone to go or penalize them for not going.

Were they promoting it as part of their official capacities? Did they use their official titles in the promotion? if so, that is not allowed.

I am a state employee. As such, I cannot promote a specific religious view in my official functions. On my own time, however, I can. In the same way, when I am at work, I cannot engage in political campaigning. I can, however, when I am away from my official post.

Do you see the differences?

You seem to have the idea backwards.  The state is the people, not the government.  The government isn't there to dictate to the people, but rather to serve the people.  What you're doing is promoting communism.  What the government shouldn't be doing is insisting people can't choose to do something.  They can't make you go, and they can't penalize you for not going, but they should protect your right to go if you choose to without some wacko cult interfering.

We don't need wacko groups interfering with our freedom.  If so, they should be seen as an enemy of the state.

[Cecelia]

Isn't it clear that to the max is just a POE at this point?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Isn't it clear that to the max is just a POE at this point?

When you have no argument, call names.

[Gwaithmir]

Isn't it clear that to the max is just a POE at this point?

When you have no argument, call names.

Like calling a group you despise a "whacko cult"?

[polymath257]

Were they promoting it as part of their official capacities? Did they use their official titles in the promotion? if so, that is not allowed.

I am a state employee. As such, I cannot promote a specific religious view in my official functions. On my own time, however, I can. In the same way, when I am at work, I cannot engage in political campaigning. I can, however, when I am away from my official post.

Do you see the differences?

You seem to have the idea backwards.  The state is the people, not the government.  The government isn't there to dictate to the people, but rather to serve the people.  What you're doing is promoting communism.  What the government shouldn't be doing is insisting people can't choose to do something.  They can't make you go, and they can't penalize you for not going, but they should protect your right to go if you choose to without some wacko cult interfering.

We don't need wacko groups interfering with our freedom.  If so, they should be seen as an enemy of the state.

And they should not be promoting whether or not you go.

In this case, nobody was penalized for going or not going. Anyone who wanted to go could go with no hindrance. No 'wacko group' prevented them from going.

But the goverment should not be involved in promoting the event (or for discouraging the event). The government should simply stay out of this type of business. And it didn't.

[Brian37]

Isn't it clear that to the max is just a POE at this point?

When you have no argument, call names.

Like calling FFRF a cult?

You do know Jefferson wrote a letter to the Baptists telling them not to worry over religious freedom, in that it is protected by the idea of his "wall". Why did he mention the "wall" concept? Because they fought a war against a tyrant that was basically dictating what sect of the King's religion they had to follow.

Hate to burst your bubble, but that is the very concept FFRF is talking about and defending when they take up issues like this.

FFRF isn't anti freedom, they are anti theocracy. There is a reason the founders wrote the first Amendment the way they did, and wrote the oath of office which says, "NO RELIGIOUS TEST" .... Because they didn't want us ending up like states like Iran or Saudi Arabia, much less being subject to support the King's church by force.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

When you have no argument, call names.

Like calling a group you despise a "whacko cult"?

Yep, they are a wacko cult.  If they were just a group minding their own business, then no big deal, but when it starts impacting other people, then time for someone to jump in and wake up the lemmings.  But you're right, and it's not nice when I call names.

[Brian37]

Like calling a group you despise a "whacko cult"?

Yep, they are a wacko cult.  If they were just a group minding their own business, then no big deal, but when it starts impacting other people, then time for someone to jump in and wake up the lemmings.  But you're right, and it's not nice when I call names.

You not liking them does not make them a cult.

You simply do not like non Christians saying we live under a neutral government that does not have religious pecking orders.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You seem to have the idea backwards.  The state is the people, not the government.  The government isn't there to dictate to the people, but rather to serve the people.  What you're doing is promoting communism.  What the government shouldn't be doing is insisting people can't choose to do something.  They can't make you go, and they can't penalize you for not going, but they should protect your right to go if you choose to without some wacko cult interfering.

We don't need wacko groups interfering with our freedom.  If so, they should be seen as an enemy of the state.

And they should not be promoting whether or not you go.

In this case, nobody was penalized for going or not going. Anyone who wanted to go could go with no hindrance. No 'wacko group' prevented them from going.

But the goverment should not be involved in promoting the event (or for discouraging the event). The government should simply stay out of this type of business. And it didn't.

They cancelled the trip.  That's penalizing someone who was wanting to exercise their freedom.

You keep talking about government, but that government is made up of people.  The government is there to serve those people, even if those people are part of the government.  They didn't require that certain people must go, and there was no penalty for not going.  I would be defending the rights of atheists to do the same.  If they wanted to go to a museum or even to one of their churches, I would support their right to choose for themselves.  Why?  Because they are part of the state and my agreement/disagreement with them has nothing to do with their choice to go or not.  I might even go with them if they invited me. 

When we systematically give power to the government over our choices, eventually we'll end up in a communist state.  I dunno about you, but certainly not something I want.  It's a problem today though because people keep being deceived into believing the government is the state, when they are meant to be stewards of such.

---

Yep, they are a wacko cult.  If they were just a group minding their own business, then no big deal, but when it starts impacting other people, then time for someone to jump in and wake up the lemmings.  But you're right, and it's not nice when I call names.

You not liking them does not make them a cult.

You simply do not like non Christians saying we live under a neutral government that does not have religious pecking orders.

It's not neutral when they can dictate personal choice.

[Cecelia]

When you have no argument, call names.

There's no point in arguing with a POE.  You might as well argue with a wall.  Actually, arguing with a wall would be more worthy of my time.  At least the wall wouldn't argue in bad faith.